Study shows that PCR tests with 35 cycles or more have an accuracy below 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

[AJCts411]

Has anyone mentioned...and do the research for yourself..In Portugal their highest court in Nov 2020 ruled that he PCR test invalid ...the (my words) junk science, a fraud. Or mentioned that in Germany there is a group of lawyers bringing ligation, accusations of fraud against some very powerful rich people, politicians and companies? Gates and Roshe were specifically mentioned as were senior level politicians. They also intend to prove that the PCR test (and did in Portugal) , can not detect covid from common cold fragments since the minuscule test is amplified over and over to the point where common cold or flu fragments/results of infection...is detected and can not differentiate between a cold and covid. So before you go off on your soap box of everything contrary to media hype is nuts, how does one disute these facts proven in a court? Notice I did not say covid is junk...sorry to cut you off on that lane.

 

[DannyTS]

Has anyone mentioned...and do the research for yourself..In Portugal their highest court in Nov 2020 ruled that he PCR test invalid ...the (my words) junk science, a fraud. Or mentioned that in Germany there is a group of lawyers bringing ligation, accusations of fraud against some very powerful rich people, politicians and companies? Gates and Roshe were specifically mentioned as were senior level politicians. They also intend to prove that the PCR test (and did in Portugal) , can not detect covid from common cold fragments since the minuscule test is amplified over and over to the point where common cold or flu fragments/results of infection...is detected and can not differentiate between a cold and covid. So before you go off on your soap box of everything contrary to media hype is nuts, how does one disute these facts proven in a court? Notice I did not say covid is junk...sorry to cut you off on that lane.

The list of media organizations that completely ignored this news is impressive. Here is a link

Covid PCR test reliability doubtful – Portugal judges

The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

www.theportugalnews.com

 

[bluehende]

Has anyone mentioned...and do the research for yourself..In Portugal their highest court in Nov 2020 ruled that he PCR test invalid ...the (my words) junk science, a fraud. Or mentioned that in Germany there is a group of lawyers bringing ligation, accusations of fraud against some very powerful rich people, politicians and companies? Gates and Roshe were specifically mentioned as were senior level politicians. They also intend to prove that the PCR test (and did in Portugal) , can not detect covid from common cold fragments since the minuscule test is amplified over and over to the point where common cold or flu fragments/results of infection...is detected and can not differentiate between a cold and covid. So before you go off on your soap box of everything contrary to media hype is nuts, how does one disute these facts proven in a court? Notice I did not say covid is junk...sorry to cut you off on that lane.

Note links are to the cdc and peer reviewed articles to show where it comes from

A Covid-19 diagnostic test won’t pick up other coronaviruses - Full Fact

Antibody tests which detect whether someone had Covid-19 in the past may pick up antibodies to other coronaviruses.

fullfact.org

Most importantly, what a PCR test won’t do is misinterpret the presence of other coronaviruses as the presence of the virus which causes Covid-19, as this post claims.


The possibility that a test might pick up related viruses that have genetic similarities to the virus you’re looking for (technically known as “cross-reactivity”) is something that is looked at when designing PCR tests.


For example, one of the earliest PCR testing protocols, which was published on 13 January, specifically checked that the test did not pick up the four human coronaviruses that cause infections including the common cold.


Results for a range of available PCR tests show that they do not cross-react with any viruses analysed, including other coronaviruses.


Where some of the confusion might have come about is because of the accuracy of antibody tests. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: “There is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses.”

 

[DannyTS]

Note links are to the cdc and peer reviewed articles to show where it comes from

A Covid-19 diagnostic test won’t pick up other coronaviruses - Full Fact

Antibody tests which detect whether someone had Covid-19 in the past may pick up antibodies to other coronaviruses.

fullfact.org

Most importantly, what a PCR test won’t do is misinterpret the presence of other coronaviruses as the presence of the virus which causes Covid-19, as this post claims.


The possibility that a test might pick up related viruses that have genetic similarities to the virus you’re looking for (technically known as “cross-reactivity”) is something that is looked at when designing PCR tests.


For example, one of the earliest PCR testing protocols, which was published on 13 January, specifically checked that the test did not pick up the four human coronaviruses that cause infections including the common cold.


Results for a range of available PCR tests show that they do not cross-react with any viruses analysed, including other coronaviruses.


Where some of the confusion might have come about is because of the accuracy of antibody tests. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: “There is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses.”

This guy is actually not an expert, not even a doctor of any kind as far as I can tell. The "results" he mentions (his links) are reviews of how these tests are supposed to work rather than comprehensive studies of how they work where other coronaviruses (not Covid 19) are tested, and we are shown negative results to prove the tests do no pick up the wrong virus as C-19

In any case, this is not directly the main focus of this thread but interesting to explore in the future nonetheless.

 

[DannyTS]

@bluehende

I am wondering how many US and Canadian labs have actually used strict protocols. We do not hear much about serious investigations into testing in North America. I hear that hospitals in Canada have been using 45 cycles regurarly!

"The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) publish a regular infection survey that reports data on positive RT-PCR test results for SARS-COV-2 virus. This survey reports that a large proportion of positive test results are based on the detection of a single gene rather than on two or more genes as required in the manufacturer instructions for use, and by the WHO in their emergency use assessment. The proportion of positives called on single genes increased from mid-November to mid-December 2020, suggesting a shift in testing policy coincident with the reported significant increase in transmission of the new variant B1.1.7, and again starting January 2021. Without diagnostic validation of the single gene call, for both the original and the B1.1.7 variant it can only be assumed that, in the absence of confirmatory testing, many of the reported positive results may in fact be inconclusive, negative or from people who suffered past infection for SARS-COV-2.4

Despite Corman et al [2] originating the use of PCR testing for SARS-COV-2 genes3 there is no agreed international standard for SARS-COV-2 testing. Instead, the World Health Organisation (WHO) leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine what genes to use and merely requires end users to adhere to the manufacturer instructions for use (IFU). As a result of this we now have an opaque plethora of commercially available testing kits, that can be applied using a variety of test criteria. Other UK laboratories use different testing kit, and test for different genes. "

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2102/2102.11612.pdf

 

[DannyTS]

from the same paper quoted above:

"Obviously, there is higher risk of encountering false positives when testing for single genes alone, because of the possibility of cross-reactivity with other HCOVs and prevalent nasopharyngeal bacteria or reagent contamination. The potential for cross reactivity when testing for SARS-COV-2 has already been confirmed by the German Instand laboratory report from April 2020 [14]. This report describes the systematic blind testing of positive and negative samples anonymously sent to many laboratories throughout Germany and evaluated for the 6 presence of a variety of genes associated with SARS-COV-2 6 . They reported significant cross reactivity and resultant false positives for OC43, and HCoV 229E (a common cold virus) as well as for SARS-COV-2 negative samples, not containing any competing pathogen"